pocpit wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:43 pm
PS: about false positives. The other day a guy with whom I play OTB told me about another guy being banned from lichess. Say player A (Elo 1800) and player B (elo 2400) know each other (they live in the same, small city). Player A knows that player B plays a certain Sicilian line, so player A prepares against this line and beats player B online. Player B reports player A, and player A is almost automatically banned: no questions, no explanations asked.
Well, that's not exactly the way it would work... one would never get banned in that situation - maybe not even looked into unless the people hosting the playing platform were total dolts - probably only if a cursory algorithm 'soft flagged' that person as a player to look into pending future results.
But yes, false positives (Firouzja for example) are a problem - but only to a degree as generally the disease is worse than the cure. Heck, I've had enough opponents be banned that I not longer play 'daily' chess anywhere and I gave up my (true) 'correspondence career' about 15 yrs ago). One in an online 'daily' tournament was....lets just call him a very highly rated Russian. He beat me in our game and I thought nothing of it (except that I really should learn the opening a bit better!), I noticed later that his account had been restored. Algorithms can only 'point towards a possible truth'.
pocpit wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:43 pm
PS: about false positives. The other day a guy with whom I play OTB told me about another guy being banned from lichess. Say player A (Elo 1800) and player B (elo 2400) know each other (they live in the same, small city). Player A knows that player B plays a certain Sicilian line, so player A prepares against this line and beats player B online. Player B reports player A, and player A is almost automatically banned: no questions, no explanations asked.
Well, that's not exactly the way it would work... one would never get banned in that situation - maybe not even looked into unless the people hosting the playing platform were total dolts - probably only if a cursory algorithm 'soft flagged' that person as a player to look into pending future results.
But yes, false positives (Firouzja for example) are a problem - but only to a degree as generally the disease is worse than the cure. Heck, I've had enough opponents be banned that I not longer play 'daily' chess anywhere and I gave up my (true) 'correspondence career' about 15 yrs ago). One in an online 'daily' tournament was....lets just call him a very highly rated Russian. He beat me in our game and I thought nothing of it (except that I really should learn the opening a bit better!), I noticed later that his account had been restored. Algorithms can only 'point towards a possible truth'.
Lichess isn’t very good at detecting computer cheats. I run two BOT’s (official, designated as such) on lichess. They are both small leela-style nets running at very low nodes. Against a human, they do very well, but an AB engine goes through them like a hot knife through butter.
I used to review the games they lost. Most often the pattern was that a weak player would lose a bunch of games, then break out stockfish to “teach that BOT a lesson.” (Frankly, the difference in play is quite obvious.) Then I’d report them. Invariably lichess would uphold my claim.
But life’s too short. I stopped reviewing the games and lichess didn’t pick them up on its own. As a consequence, the ratings of the bots fell by about 150.
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:34 pm
You can't accuse him of cheating in this tournament unless you have concrete proof.
It's a lot different than cheating online.
Is it ??? Really is it ??? For me it is morally the same! You take steroids to win your high school track meet ... does that mean that if you go to the olympics it will be completely different ???? I don't understand why people are being so soft on someone who cheats and ruins the game of chess. I only play 1 0 bullet online because of the rampant cheaters like Hans. Remember he was cheating from 12 to 16 years old (according to him). He got banned several times and my guess is that before they ban the guy he got several warnings. For each time he got warned he probably was cheating 1000x where it went unnoticed. He would get back and change his cheating protocol and try again ... so a serial cheater. Nepo and Tang have directly accused him of cheating against them online (he didn't get caught on those games) and Tang would never speak to him again. Chess.com has come out and said today that he has cheated way more than he is letting on. Someone like that should be nowhere near a competitive chess event! That would be like putting a peophile to take care of a kindegarten playground and saying that he is now reformed. Probably not a good idea!
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:34 pm
You can't accuse him of cheating in this tournament unless you have concrete proof.
It's a lot different than cheating online.
Is it ??? Really is it ??? For me it is morally the same! You take steroids to win your high school track meet ... does that mean that if you go to the olympics it will be completely different ???? I don't understand why people are being so soft on someone who cheats and ruins the game of chess. I only play 1 0 bullet online because of the rampant cheaters like Hans. Remember he was cheating from 12 to 16 years old (according to him). He got banned several times and my guess is that before they ban the guy he got several warnings. For each time he got warned he probably was cheating 1000x where it went unnoticed. He would get back and change his cheating protocol and try again ... so a serial cheater. Nepo and Tang have directly accused him of cheating against them online (he didn't get caught on those games) and Tang would never speak to him again. Chess.com has come out and said today that he has cheated way more than he is letting on. Someone like that should be nowhere near a competitive chess event! That would be like putting a peophile to take care of a kindegarten playground and saying that he is now reformed. Probably not a good idea!
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:34 pm
You can't accuse him of cheating in this tournament unless you have concrete proof.
It's a lot different than cheating online.
Is it ??? Really is it ??? For me it is morally the same! You take steroids to win your high school track meet ... does that mean that if you go to the olympics it will be completely different ???? I don't understand why people are being so soft on someone who cheats and ruins the game of chess. I only play 1 0 bullet online because of the rampant cheaters like Hans. Remember he was cheating from 12 to 16 years old (according to him). He got banned several times and my guess is that before they ban the guy he got several warnings. For each time he got warned he probably was cheating 1000x where it went unnoticed. He would get back and change his cheating protocol and try again ... so a serial cheater. Nepo and Tang have directly accused him of cheating against them online (he didn't get caught on those games) and Tang would never speak to him again. Chess.com has come out and said today that he has cheated way more than he is letting on. Someone like that should be nowhere near a competitive chess event! That would be like putting a peophile to take care of a kindegarten playground and saying that he is now reformed. Probably not a good idea!
Morally the same yes, but my point is that you need concrete proof of it.
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 6:04 pm
Lichess isn’t very good at detecting computer cheats. I run two BOT’s (official, designated as such) on lichess. They are both small leela-style nets running at very low nodes. Against a human, they do very well, but an AB engine goes through them like a hot knife through butter.
I used to review the games they lost. Most often the pattern was that a weak player would lose a bunch of games, then break out stockfish to “teach that BOT a lesson.” (Frankly, the difference in play is quite obvious.) Then I’d report them. Invariably lichess would uphold my claim.
Well, you might hop on over to chess.com. Hans says they have "the best cheat detection in the world". I think we can believe him.
But seriously folks...
'cheating' against engines! I don't play there much but find comfort in the fact that they seem to spend their time watching out for humans, not poor little defenseless engines.
dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 6:04 pm
Lichess isn’t very good at detecting computer cheats. I run two BOT’s (official, designated as such) on lichess. They are both small leela-style nets running at very low nodes. Against a human, they do very well, but an AB engine goes through them like a hot knife through butter.
I used to review the games they lost. Most often the pattern was that a weak player would lose a bunch of games, then break out stockfish to “teach that BOT a lesson.” (Frankly, the difference in play is quite obvious.) Then I’d report them. Invariably lichess would uphold my claim.
Well, you might hop on over to chess.com. Hans says they have "the best cheat detection in the world". I think we can believe him.
But seriously folks...
'cheating' against engines! I don't play there much but find comfort in the fact that they seem to spend their time watching out for humans, not poor little defenseless engines.
Clearly the theory of 'The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf' fails in the Niemann case I see here.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
CornfedForever wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:20 am
But seriously folks...
'cheating' against engines! I don't play there much but find comfort in the fact that they seem to spend their time watching out for humans, not poor little defenseless engines.
Lichess didn’t detect the cheating against humans, either, most of the time. As it turns out, people who see nothing wrong with cheating against engines also see nothing wrong with cheating against humans, which is why almost all of those cheaters had their accounts closed down after I alerted lichess to it. (Those BOTs were like a perfect cheater honey trap.)
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
